The D.C. Circuit, 2-1, affirmed summary judgment for BLM in a challenge to the agency's 2003 final rule withdrawing a proposed rule that would have limited the maximum size of "mill sites" for mining claims on federal lands and instead codifying the agency's historical understanding that the governing statute imposed no such limit. Environmental groups argued BLM's interpretation of §42 of the 1872 Mining Law was unreasonable because §42 unambiguously limited a claimant to one five-acre mill site per mining claim. The appellate court concluded the operative words of §42 plainly contained no limit on the number of mill sites a claim owner might locate. The groups next argued BLM violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS. The court found the final rule was not a "major federal action," and thus BLM was not required to prepare an EIS. The groups also argued BLM violated the notice provision of the APA by issuing the final rule without an additional notice-and-comment cycle, but the court found the rule to be a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed rule. It affirmed summary judgment for BLM.

In an unpublished per curiam judgment, the D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for NMFS in a challenge to the Service's 2019 rule regarding turtle excluder devices. Environmental groups argued the final rule was not adequately explained, that it was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule that preceded it, and that NMFS was required by NEPA to conduct a species-by-species analysis of the protected turtle population rather than an analysis of the aggregate population. A district court granted summary judgment for NMFS. The appellate court found NMFS adequately explained why it chose to require fewer shrimpers to use turtle excluder devices in the final rule than in the proposed rule—to impose a smaller economic burden on the fishing industry—and that the final rule fell squarely within the range of options in the proposed rule. It further found the NEPA claim was forfeited because the groups failed to raise it during the administrative process. The court affirmed summary judgment for NMFS.

The Sixth Circuit reversed a district court ruling in a lawsuit concerning the Line 5 Pipeline that runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. Michigan's attorney general (AG) initially sued the pipeline owner in state court, seeking to enjoin continued operation of the pipeline based on alleged violations of the public trust doctrine, common-law public nuisance, and Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The owner removed the suit to federal court, invoking federal question jurisdiction. The AG moved to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and untimely removal. The district court denied the motion, holding it had federal question jurisdiction under Grable because resolution of the claims necessarily required interpretation of federal law, namely the Submerged Lands Act, the Pipeline Safety Act, and a 1977 treaty. The appellate court found the pipeline owner failed to timely remove the suit, and that there were no equitable exceptions to the deadline. It reversed the district court ruling and remanded the suit to state court.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's permanent injunction in an ESA citizen suit concerning a proposed timber harvesting project on private property in Oregon. Environmental groups argued the project would cause a "take" of marbled murrelets in violation of the ESA by clearing acres of trees used for breeding. The district court found the project would eliminate 49 acres of old growth forest occupied by the species, which qualified as a "significant habitat modification or degradation," and permanently enjoined implementation of the project. The appellate court concluded the district court applied the correct injury standard and committed no factual error in holding that the timber harvest would cause actual injury and therefore "harm" under the ESA. It further held the evidence more than supported the district court's conclusion that the project would specifically cause injury to the species on the property. The court affirmed the permanent injunction.

A district court granted in part and denied in part an outdoor recreation group's motion to preliminarily enjoin the National Park Service's (NPS') regulations governing commercial filming on public lands. The group argued the regulations' land use fee and permitting requirements violated the First Amendment. The court found the group persuasively argued the regulations suffered from content-based discrimination in light of a speaker-based distinction, and that while NPS had compelling reasons for the requirements, it was questionable whether NPS' methods were sufficiently tailored to those reasons. It preliminarily enjoined the regulations as applied to the group.

A district court denied a commercial fisherman's motion to preliminarily enjoin the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA from enforcing a 2023 rule that revised the definition of "waters of the United States." The fisherman argued the agencies did not faithfully implement the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023) test for adjacent wetlands because their definition omitted a key element, and moved to enjoin enforcement of the rule against him and his properties. The court found it could not square the fisherman's view of what Sackett required for a wetland to be "adjacent"—that a continuous surface connection is necessary but not sufficient for a wetland to be practically indistinguishable and thus adjacent to a jurisdictional water—with what Sackett actually requires—that the adjacent body of water is "waters of the United States" and that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. Finding that the rule faithfully conformed to the definition of "waters of the United States" as interpreted by Sackett, the court denied the fisherman's motion.